No way to destroy attacking Cruise Missile Ships or Guided Missile Frigates

Currently there is no way to set up a defense that actively tries to destroy attacking Cruise Missile Ships or Guided Missile Frigates. I suggest the best balance to this issue is to allow the placing of Defensive Navy Missile Batteries in garrisons.

Oh you've got some balls Aries. Straight after you've just taken all those assets you report the problem with suggestions on how to stop the exploit. Right after you've just exploited it. So nobody can do the same to you. Pffff

This isn't a new issue. I was arguing against the power of some of the new navy changes from the beginning. Ask Super, we did some rounds.

I sure know I am not going to highlight it again just before a conflict to invite the attack or to alert my enemies. Although, they were well aware of the weapons having used them on an ally of mine some weeks ago.

So, I take it you are for the suggestion, or no?

I fully expect this to be fixed asap.

So you knew this was an issue but you still exploited it. Bad form. Thing is with issues like this the GM doesn't do anything until it's been used and someone looses there country.

You didn't know? It's in the game docs.

You are going to be so surprised when you realize that I didn't invent the navy rules. Check out this thread.

https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/1/22947.html?1384496505

Where I say:

"The navy should fall somewhere as being somewhat less efficient in combat as land-based fighter and bombers with the advantage of global mobility."

"any adjustments should not increase their combat ability beyond land-based air weapons"

"Navies fighters are not a unit to replace roles of everything else."

"I would expect though, for a player with a very good defense like you described, that a navy only strategy would be less effective."

"a heavily defended country, affordable by few players, which would and should take considerable effort to take. I think it is okay if such a target is very inefficiently taken with navy firepower alone. "

"Why should navies, with their immense range, be any better than land units or land-based air power?"

"I don't think naval units should be unstoppable unlimited range weapons of doom"

"Weapons should be balanced by being effective in different roles and relative to their cost. "

"if the navy is as effective (or more effective) as a land-based air unit or a ground unit, why would one purchase those units over naval units?"


Where was anyone else with these views then? I now have "bad form" because I didn't remind my enemies about the power of navies on the eve of war? The same guys who used navies themselves on an ally of mine recently.

That's kinda a stretch. You think?

Call me old fashioned but I believe in a fair fight. What you've done is exploit a known game flaw to you. To effectively nip in an slit an active players throat, without taking a single loss. It's bad form alright.

And yes I was unaware of this flaw. I only just started playing again. Had to search the game docs for an hour this morning to find how you took these countries without losses.

The GM needs to fix this asap.

I would be absoultley raging if this was used against me.

he pointed it out it was used against an ally of his, whats he supposed to do? take it up the bum? quit playing because he can't win? what?

although i do have a couple of questions, i'd been looking at that in the doc for a while, i thought the dude had Mobile missile defense set up, the MIB are suppose to hold off the navy, aren't they? making it a contest on who has more ammo? at least the MIB in garrisons are suppose to work?

did he have those things set up? i only saw like one attack the used Missile interceptors, so it seems like he didn't have his defense set up against a bug that he/team used himself... which essentially means he underestimated his opponents...

bad thing to do when your talking about aries and his allies

It is true that the limit of this type of attack is ammo. Each sea-based cruise missile is over double the cost of a missile interceptor battery and over ten times the cost of a missile interceptor. I came well prepared with 18 strategic carrier fleets with an extra 350,000 of each guided missiles and sea-based cruise missiles in reserve to ensure I had enough firepower.

He did have some missile defense setup in garrisons as well as some mobile missile defense units. However, I calculated the risk of fleets and my defense is much more substantially aimed at them.

and their you have it, the problem in this case wasn't trully a bug, so much as Aries was better prepared,

so stop crying VX, Aries pointed out above that the target knew about the bug, and used it, he just wasn't prepared to have it used against himself, thats either poor planning, or just getting out classed, you pick

Stop cyring? You have to be kidding? This has nothing to do with being prepared or outclassed or whatever. Regardless of MIB'S or Mobile missile. The issue is the air defence being completely bypassed. That's the problem I have. Nobody is safe from this cant you see that? Aries himself knows it's a problem. Right after he exploited it he started this thread.

VX, Orbiter asked you a very good question. What was I supposed to do in terms of the conflict?

As to identifying the problem, you are late to the party. I was on the front-line warning of making navies too powerful before ANYONE. So stop acting like I created this problem because NOTHING could be further from the truth.

The timing of this thread is ideal. This would not be the first time I argued that something was wrong, it wasn't changed, and then I demonstrated the problem. Last time the GM took notice and changes were made.

That said, the terms of the conflict were equal. We had access to the same weapons and fought under the same game rules. I have won numerous conflicts with different strategies using ground weapons and land based aircraft. This was the first time I used the navy. Though the weapons were different, the victor was still the one that had the best preparation and strategy.

You could have reported it when it was used against your ally?

I'm not acting like you created the problem. That clearly lies with the GM.

I read the link you posted. Nothing was mentioned about air defence being bypassed. It was centred around navy fighters. I bet nobody imagined air def could get bypassed when this was being discussed.

It's takes very little preparation to setup this kind of attack. How many days did it takes you? Less than a week I bet? Again something that bothers me that someone can move onto another world and take these well defended countries with ease. And risk little. I mentioned it in another thread. Compared to preparing to take on fed air defence. This method is childsplay. You wouldn't have even bothered trying to take those countries if it weren't for this exploit. Right?

Reported what? That weapons were being used in accordance with game rules?

Specifics were light on that thread, as you can see it was prior to the updates being released and the amount of information we had was all that Andy provided in the first post. It was our opportunity to provide feedback as the features were being developed and you can clearly see where I stood on it.

On preparation, I am not sure what you are comparing? Compared to other offensive weapons, strategic carrier groups require no less than 13 different weapons with minimum quantities (don't forget supply ships) and 8 of those cannot be shuttled. This means that a country using navies must purchase sufficient quantities of those items within its spending cap. Further, as I mentioned, sea-based cruise missiles are very expensive and 10,000 such missiles will deplete a full military spending cap. The some 500,000 I had required no less than 50 (and likely more) separate purchase orders at a cost of $49.5 trillion if purchased at 330 quality (The ones I employed were nearly fully upgraded to 450 quality). That cost is just for the cruise missiles, you then most stock ammo for the other 10 weapons that require it and the weapons themselves.

With all that said, preparing defenses has always been the more involved endeavor and, despite the need for a change, I was quite prepared with countermeasures were I faced with a similar attack. In addition, I revised my overall attack plan and individual tactics several times in the weeks before the war and spammed my allies accordingly.

I am Aries. I only make it look easy.

the best thing I can think of is allow attack sub fleets to counter attack as a stealth bomber or convent missile unit would. then all three ways to war is covered.. obviously ints and helos will not fight navy. attack sub fleets are the best answer in my opinion to act as a counter attack method.

UMM, Just so you know VX I knew it bypassed air defenses., game docs clearly tell you what AD does and when you read what weapons attack or defend against them, no navy unit is listed. that's a dead give away there.

About that. The sub fleets.. um.. are not very good right now. They also need addressing at some point. Trying to take it one at a time. The sub group is currently no match for a strategic carrier group which smashes it beneath its heel not even noticing it was there.

Here was my very pathetic attempt to attack a strategic carrier group with an attack submarine group that very carefully made its way into its 1000 range just before the conflict and joined with five other attack submarine groups:

"Hostilities between Outpost and Tutonic Knights
Tutonic Knights (the attacked country) reports:

The country used 294 navy missile interceptors in the defense.
20 soldiers were killed and 40 were wounded.
The War Index remains 99.95

Outpost (the attacker) reports:

Samplon lost 60 seal units and 2 attack submarines.
Samplon lost supply ships, gasoline and military supplies.
The attack may have been reduced or eliminated by Anti Missile Missiles.
189 soldiers were killed and 437 were wounded.
The War Index remains 100.00"


My remaining attack submarine groups limped home (more accurately disbanded instantly but going for visuals here) having proved they had no use. I guess VX would have had me stop the war right there and complain to the gm but I digress.

However, I did lose 8 guided missile frigates, 3 cruise missile ships, and an attack destroyer when I attacked the naval base which appears to be defended by spare naval batteries.

similar to drys, i think that putting land to sea batts into a mobile unit, and giving it counter attack ability like conv and stealth, would be really groovy,

but maybe more the size of attack units of 400ish number, they seem to die fast in every report i've checked, but that could just be a quality thing

Back to the original.. ahem.. topic, I still stick with the ability to add defensive naval missile batteries to garrisons. This is available to free and premium players and I think strikes the right balance between the power of navies and the options on defense.

i do agree, i just like the mobile sales, gc was flashing before my eyes, cha-ching, anyways, yes, helis and/or dmb should autodefend fleets, given the number of navy weapons that can be used, maybe they should be in the efective range similar to that against stealth, but instead of 0.2 effective, maybe like ~1%, so equal q, 100 DMB would, kill 5 CMS or 25 GMF

yes aries they would work like DM or AA against navy. would you propose a increase in max garrison size as well? gonna be hard to figure out what to sacrifice in a garrison to add such. the reason a counter attack was stated by myself is that you don't have to reconfigure and if its an effective counter attack feature it might end up cheaper. not sure about mobiles orbiter! lol
but, ahem, It would work Aries, but i'd rather see a new battery created vs using navy batts. IE: land based naval Def Batt.

I don't think an increase in garrison size is needed. I think with some creativity and with the additional weapon choice that the defense can be quite powerful.

Any solution that bypasses the air defence is second best. Simple arithmetic dictates. 200 targets to destroy vs potentially 1000's of air defence wings, plus the garrisons. Garrisons are slow to resupply. Air defence can be rebuilt instantly. A short term quick fix would be an option for stealth bombers to counter against the navies. In the long run a whole rethink is needed. I'd go down the road of supply. It's crazy that supply units can drive across the sea to other continents. Make navies about controlling the sea/supply lanes in inter continental warfare. It would add a whole new dimension to the war game.

Another idea. Make the navy-based helicopters effective versus fleets and have them respond to fleet based attacks within a radius similar to regular helis versus land.

That would mean every country needs a navy.